Share this story

In 2017, newly founded tabletop studio Plan B Games released Century: Spice Road. A tight, brain-teasing card game, Spice Road cast players as merchants trading spices on the overland route between Europe and Asia, and it combined the mechanical minimalism of hit gem-trading game Splendor with just a hint of Dominion-style deckbuilding.

What was intriguing to many fans, though, was that Spice Road was just the first installment in a planned trilogy. Players would be able to combine it with the future games in the series, mixing them to create a variety of gameplay experiences. Now the second release in the lineup has arrived in the form of Century: Eastern Wonders. But is it a rewarding game in its own right? An engaging add-on to an established hit? Or, is it just a gimmick that sounds great in theory—but doesn’t hold up once it hits the table?

Eastern Wonders’ action unfolds in the Indonesian Spice Islands, a scattered archipelago rich with precious cloves, tea, chilis, and ginger. Players take command of cargo ships, sailing between islands, establishing trading posts, and competing to export the most lucrative collections of spices.

This is a similar premise to Spice Road. You begin the game with a modest collection of spices, here represented by color-coded wooden cubes. Some are plentiful and easy to obtain, others are harder to get your hands on, and as you play you try to accumulate collections of cubes shown on a set of "objective tiles" in order to claim victory points.

Game details

But there are also differences to discover. The most noticeable is that where Spice Road revolved purely around cards in players’ hands, Eastern Wonders introduces a board—a modular hex grid of island tiles that you randomly assemble every time you play. You make your way from one island to the next, trading spices as you go. Each island offers a different deal for enterprising captains: five ginger for two tea, two tea for two chilis, or two cloves for half a boatload of less valuable goods.

The game becomes a clever puzzle of efficiency and optimization, and you’ll scour the board looking for the quickest way to collect point-scoring sets of spices before cashing in your cubes at one of four port tiles. Thoughtful as this process is, it’s also a deceptively competitive race. You’ll need to keep a close eye on your opponents, trying to work out which objectives they are aiming for—and deciding whether you can snatch them first.

This adds an interesting spatial dimension to the formula laid down by Spice Road, and the combination of trading and navigating your way across the board takes some careful planning. But what really makes Eastern Wonders shine is the collection of extra mechanisms it bolts to its slick mechanical core. To move additional spaces on your turn, you can play extra cubes, laying them in your wake across the board. However, other players can pick up your discarded spices. This makes for some tricky decisions about the goods you can afford to throw away and the ones you want to avoid handing to your opponents.

Then there’s the game’s trading system. Before you can exchange spices on an island, you must establish a trading post there. The first player to build a trading post on any tile does so for free, but any subsequent players must hand over some of their cargo for the privilege. This results in an early-game land grab as players rush to establish a presence on as much of the board as possible; later, it throws up dilemmas about whether it’s worth paying the price to open up much-needed trading opportunities.

Finally, a selection of upgrades provides new abilities over the course of the game. You’ll choose between making your ship faster, increasing the capacity of your hold, or harvesting spices more efficiently. And while your new powers are subtle, they can be critical to victory when used to their full advantage.

It all comes together to create a series of multi-layered decisions, and working out your best course of action is rarely simple. But mechanically, Eastern Wonders remains straightforward. Its rules are just two pages long, and after you’ve played a few turns they become second nature, leaving you to concentrate on your tactics. The game also has a tendency to produce nail-bitingly close games with only a couple of points separating winners and losers.

The wooden boats are delightful.

A closeup of one the game's map tiles.

Owen Duffy

But as impressive as the game is on its own, this isn't the best way to play.

Also included in the box is a set of rules for an advanced “Sand to Sea” mode, which incorporates the cards from Century: Spice Road. In addition to travelling around the board, establishing your hold on different islands, and trading with their inhabitants, you can buy and play cards which let you upgrade the spices in your hold, representing a mercantile empire that stretches around the globe.

The crucial difference between the two setups is that, to move your ship, you’ll need to discard a card from your hand. Thus, on every turn you’ll need to weigh your options, deciding whether the cards you hold are more valuable for the trading advantages they offer or the ability to sail between islands. This adds little to the game’s mechanical complexity, but it does add an entirely new element to the decision-making. And to intensify things even further, the combined game mode also introduces some blank board spaces representing stretches of open sea. This means that navigating your way around the board becomes simultaneously more important and more difficult, and it ratchets up the sense of pressure as you try to gain the slightest edge over your opponents.

Having played all three currently available iterations of the Century series, I have no hesitation in saying that "Sand to Sea" is my favorite. In fact, I don’t see any real reason to go back to playing either game on its own. And with the final game in the trilogy set for release in 2019, I’m looking forward to seeing the resolution of this rich and elegant series.

Share this story

37 Reader Comments

Century Spice Road is one of those boardgamegeek hyped games that is really just a marketing triumph. Here's what some of the top gurus wrote of it:

"A slightly more elegant, interesting Splendor. But also a very prototypical soulless euro. I'm trying to get out of the soulless euro business."

"Pretty bland/generic turn cubes -> other cubes -> points game, but relatively short with enough decisions to be fun enough."

"Utterly abstract"

The Gurus rate it at about 6 on average which is to say, pretty low, with "meh" and some preferring Splendour. Whereas the overall rating is 7.5 which is very, very high (BGG ratings have a small window due to averaging effects) and should denote a stunning game. But that's the quirk that is the boardgamegeek rating system.

Century Spice Road is one of those boardgamegeek hyped games that is really just a marketing triumph. Here's what some of the top gurus wrote of it:

"A slightly more elegant, interesting Splendor. But also a very prototypical soulless euro. I'm trying to get out of the soulless euro business."

"Pretty bland/generic turn cubes -> other cubes -> points game, but relatively short with enough decisions to be fun enough."

"Utterly abstract"

The Gurus rate it at about 6 on average which is to say, pretty low, with "meh" and some preferring Splendour. Whereas the overall rating is 7.5 which is very, very high (BGG ratings have a small window due to averaging effects) and should denote a stunning game. But that's the quirk that is the boardgamegeek rating system.

Have you played it, though? I find BoardGameGeek really valuable as a big game database, but as an arbiter of quality it's less useful.

I was precisely addressing that in what I wrote.

Yet you always post what “the gurus” think. BGG is great for information, but I give the reviews and ratings as much weight as Rotten Tomatoes scores.

Game reviews are much like movie reviews. It’s best to find a reviewer that has similar tastes as yours and go on that. Not just go by a weighted average or what “top critics” say.

Sure, but I directly quoted the gurus and it was analytical, not a matter of taste at all.

The BGG average rating is often a result of a hyped game and not a matter of quality. Reviews are often just riding a moment of enthusiasm, feeding the hype. It's easy to waste a lot of money on mediocre games, whereas other hobbies tend to be more objective (for instance, camera gear).

Which is where the gurus come in.

To help people I quote the gurus because they get past the hype (including hype reviews), their criticism is analytical, and they are a good foil to misleading popular sentiment.

Since Ars has a tendency to go with hyped games, I think this is a good service.

Except games are subjective. What you may hate, I may like. There isn’t much to objectively review. A game getting hyped because lots of people enjoy playing it doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

But games criticism isn't purely subjective. And the quoted comments demonstrate that. That's why I specifically mentioned 'analytical'. Even in art, like movies and books, there's a fair bit that isn't purely subjective. Re-hashing a done-before story-line, for instance. Or 1 dimensional characters that never change etc etc. Somewhat analogous to the issues with Century Spice.

Quote:

It’s like summer movies versus Oscar contenders. Poo-pooing popular games because they are popular, but may not be deep is just the same kind of navel-gazing.

Rather, it's like a science/nerd website only promoting popular/shallow movies because they've been taken in by the hype. And it's a tendency.

What you might expect is that Ars would be promoting a better cut of game. Well, sometimes. Like 'Root', for instance. But otherwise there's a real risk with Ars choices of games of being left with "what's the big deal?". The Gurus I quote provide a nice counter to give people a better chance of making an informed decision, and not just going out and spending money 'because it was in Ars so it has to be good'.

Quote:

Looking for “objective” reviews of entertainment seems to totally miss the point. Once you get past the basics (rules clarity, component quality) its all subjective.

But that's what I'm aiming at: the rules. If the rules are just another run-of-the-mill, unoriginal and shallow game with a sparkly veneer, then people need to know that. That comes before the subjectivity bit. Or just go with the BGG ratings and the popular taste. Your choice.

Reducing Century to "cubes -> other cubes -> points" is awfully cynical. Splendor has even simpler rules and is still a tour de force, and almost any board game could be boiled down to "do a task -> do a connecting task -> points."

I own Century: Golem Edition, which is a fantasy reskinning of Spice Road. The art is cute and entertaining to look at, and I find the crystals way more aesthetically pleasing than the wooden cubes. The only problem is that, because the crystals take different colors than the cubes, it's next to impossible to merge the game with Eastern Wonders to play From Sand to Sea. I'll see about picking up Spice Road if Eastern Wonders tickles my fancy.

Reducing Century to "cubes -> other cubes -> points" is awfully cynical. Splendor has even simpler rules and is still a tour de force, and almost any board game could be boiled down to "do a task -> do a connecting task -> points."

Splendour is another hyped game with almost nothing in it. It's also barely social; even a zombie could play it. Yet it's analysis paralysis prone and impossible to make any kind of decision until it's your turn. So it has downtime problems as well. Tour de force? San Juan is a tour de force, at least compared to Spendor, and simple.

But if you consider the simple rules and the lure of the economic engine building, I suppose it's easy access, so wide appeal. A great design if you're looking to sell a lot.

Contrast with another contemporary game, for instance, Medici the Card Game. Now that's a proper game, and simple, and pro-social.

Century Spice Road is one of those boardgamegeek hyped games that is really just a marketing triumph. Here's what some of the top gurus wrote of it:

Just a note, but I'm pretty sure if any of us really cared what the "game gurus" had to say about it, we'd just go to BGG ourselves. We don't need some self-styled boardgame gatekeeper harping on how every game reviewed really sucks and we're just all too stupid to realize it.

Anyone's that saying Century Spice Road is overhyped obviously hasn't played it. Because it's been a hit amount the gamers in our FLGS. It's relatively quick (the box says 30 minutes, we've done it in under 20). Perhaps it's "too simple" for the experts at BGG (who honestly prefer heavier games over simpler games), but that doesn't mean lack of fun.

It's one of those games that you can get your gaming group together, explain the rules (seriously, it's a single sheet of paper) and get going in minutes. And it's a game we can fall back on - we have 30 minutes, can't find anything to play, so break out the Spice Road.

Eastern Wonders is a much heavier game - despite it saying 45 minutes on the box, we've always taken an hour or more. And we've not tried the combination yet - it's still new enough that we're teaching the rest of the players the game.

Overhyped games don't last - they appear, then they disappear and only dusty boxes languish on shelves. Something Spice Road and Eastern Wonders has not done.

In the end it only matters what you personally enjoy. Whether it's cheese, wine, or board games you'll find people that specialize and have very refined tastes. That doesn't make these tastes correct, it just makes their tastes theirs. For all these things, find a reviewer with similar tastes, and use that as a guide, rather than a poll of the "experts." These are subjective things, not objective.

Spice Road was a game that I could enjoy with other people when we share no language. We had a blast even when we couldn't exchange words. Something like Dominion would be impossible in those circumstances.

What makes board games different from tastes like wine is that it's a shared experience. I still love the game, with the right people that also enjoy it. With the board gaming friends that play a ton of games, I might try something else, because probably 50% of them find it hollow, and there's enough new out there with which the success rate is higher.

Century Spice Road is one of those boardgamegeek hyped games that is really just a marketing triumph. Here's what some of the top gurus wrote of it:

Just a note, but I'm pretty sure if any of us really cared what the "game gurus" had to say about it, we'd just go to BGG ourselves. We don't need some self-styled boardgame gatekeeper harping on how every game reviewed really sucks and we're just all too stupid to realize it.

I think someone's just mad their hobby got popular, and by pooh-poohing a couple of well known titles they can retain their board game hipster cred.

Ooh, yeah, that's a good point.

I run into this a lot with a lot of the hobbies I'm involved with when they gain some sense of wider acceptance. Which is pathetic, since I'm usually more "OG" than the people going all hipster, and I love when my thing gets popular, 'cause that totally means I get more thing!

Sure, in this case, there are a metric ton of new games being made, and maybe the increased accessibility means that things that wouldn't have made the cut a decade ago are suddenly worth taking a chance on, now. But for every crap game that probably shouldn't have made it out of play testing, we get a dozen others that never would have made it in in the first place, and that is an awesome thing for everybody involved, even if the hipsters can't get over themselves enough to see it.

Century Spice Road is one of those boardgamegeek hyped games that is really just a marketing triumph. Here's what some of the top gurus wrote of it:

Just a note.......

Brace yourselves.... Lol!

Quote:

but I'm pretty sure if any of us really cared what the "game gurus" had to say about it, we'd just go to BGG ourselves. We don't need some self-styled boardgame gatekeeper harping on how every game reviewed really sucks and we're just all too stupid to realize it.

Well, that's one way to spin it. highly presumptuous.

Rather, on other people's authority (not my own), with salient quotes, I'm trying to give a counter to what is often a popular (safe?), enthusiastic but questionable choice on the part of Ars.

And not everyone can be bothered with boardgamegeek; no presumption of stupidity.

This and your constant fawning over what so-called "gurus" think tells me everything I need to know about you.

What fawning? I gave direct quotes. I didn't even mention names.

Quote:

You're one of those pseudo-intellectual wannabes who is so desperate to be seen as "sophisticated" that you can't handle the idea of something being fun for the sake of it.

...what's with the personal attack?

This is rather like calling someone a troll who is in fact making a fully reasoned argument.

Isn't the whole point of what I am saying about Splendor/Century-Spice is that it might not be as good as the hype and Ars would have you think? What's wrong with that? Aren't we allowed to debate?

Should I instead be fawning over everything the Ars experts say?

And rather than make a bunch of unsupported assertions, I quoted analytical criticisms of the game to demonstrate the issues.

The games I mentioned are very light, and equivalent in some essential ways to Century Spice (eg, San Juan has engine building). Not exactly doing my 'sophistication credentials' much good.

Quote:

Also, if you're not being social while playing Splendor it's because either you're not social unless forced to be, or nobody wants to socialize with you. Or maybe both.

Lol! Thanks for that.

A genuine social game is pro-social. They include mechanisms that induce talkiness. Splendor doesn't. It's borderline multiplayer solitaire. Whereas I've heard Medici being called a riot, for instance. My two nieces were instantly addicted to the card game version, and were jolly noisy playing it (in a good way).

Anyone's that saying Century Spice Road is overhyped obviously hasn't played it. Because it's been a hit amount the gamers in our FLGS. It's relatively quick (the box says 30 minutes, we've done it in under 20). Perhaps it's "too simple" for the experts at BGG (who honestly prefer heavier games over simpler games), but that doesn't mean lack of fun.

Well, I sure didn't say that a mediocre game is necessarily going to be unpopular.

Quote:

Overhyped games don't last - they appear, then they disappear and only dusty boxes languish on shelves. Something Spice Road and Eastern Wonders has not done.

...or Monopoly? Yet monopoly suffers from being argumentative and from player elimination, and being too long. Still roaringly popular. And maybe for similar reasons: an appealing mechanism (money makes money; or for Century Spice the income engine), and easy rules.

But there are a bunch of games that are as simple and should have replaced it. Ie, Acquire, another money makes money game. That's a one page rules game also. I played it with my 7 year old brother and it was a screaming hit. But kids do love cash notes. That's why I resist the advice to use poker chips in such games.

I think someone's just mad their hobby got popular, and by pooh-poohing a couple of well known titles they can retain their board game hipster cred.

...anonymously? And I'm no hipster.

I'm getting personally criticised (not just by you), yet only by setting up a strawman.

It may amaze you to know that I'm actually quite the type to want to help people. Perhaps because I come from a family of 10 kids. That's my only motive for posting.

Psychoanalyse that.

Quote:

Also find it ironic that OP holds up Root as an example of a good game, when it's actually an example of what he's railing against- a much hyped but watered down asymmetric/COIN game.

Well, what one of the gurus said is that Root is COIN done right. He also gave some great tips on leaving out the Vagabond for the first game for a 3 player game (apparently doubles the rules yet for the least interesting character); or instead of the Vagabond, use a character from the expansion. I quoted that in the comments on the Ars article about Root. I think that's helpful to people. Don't you?

I know I wouldn't be on your group come gaming night, whether the game be Splendor or Azul, or it's a round of Terraforming Mars or Power Grid.

Lol! For sure. But maybe I'm such a talkative charmer in real life that you'd instantly be my fawning slave. haha!

I've never played heavy games like those you mention. To reassure you, the gurus on BGG play light games and fillers also, not just Advanced Squadron Leader. And, gosh, even like the lighter games. Examples, (pro-social choices here),

I gave High society to a friend as a leaving gift (from a flatshare). She told me later "Itsastickup, I'm so grateful to you. That game has got my family actually talking to each other and having fun". Apparently, to her long distress, her family were the kind to simply sit in front of the TV and drink beer, and rarely talked to each other.

Pro-social games of that kind carry their own conversation; no need for religion or politics or other contentions to mess up the evening. Other types of games, all you can do is talk over them; they don't have their own conversation.

To the 'gurus on Board Game Geek' I'm sure:1. Chess is an old, stale, generic medieval theme wargame2. Poker is a simplistic game with an too-random 'push your luck' mechanic that takes too long to play out.3. Gin Rummy has a long, crushing endgame4. Spades has a dry theme and poor partner mechanics, based on hidden cards and no catch-up mechanism.

etc

BGG is a great resource, but come on. You can love a 'bad' game. Twilight Struggle might be a masterpiece of gaming culture, but it would be a terrible game for almost everyone I know.

To the 'gurus on Board Game Geek' I'm sure:1. Chess is an old, stale, generic medieval theme wargame2. Poker is a simplistic game with an too-random 'push your luck' mechanic that takes too long to play out.3. Gin Rummy has a long, crushing endgame4. Spades has a dry theme and poor partner mechanics, based on hidden cards and no catch-up mechanism.

etc

BGG is a great resource, but come on. You can love a 'bad' game. Twilight Struggle might be a masterpiece of gaming culture, but it would be a terrible game for almost everyone I know.

Lol! Cool reply.

For fun I thought I would do a quick survey of 'the gurus' of those mentioned games.

1)Chess. rated 5.5 (very low), pretty much what you wrote "A boring abstract game that requires too much thought and too much reliance on memorizing specific moves." Lol! Ok, so that's not actually representative, just the most negative opinion. It seems they are keener on 'Go', overall.

2) Poker rated 4 (freaking awful). Most negative opinion "Slightly more interesting than rock-paper-scissors,....You must know the ranks of different hands and the odds of drawing them based on what you're holding. And...that's it. The rest is luck, guesswork and B.S. Bottom line: if there are no stakes, poker is a bore.....The "thrill' is the gambling, not the game play.....so [if there's no real skill] why do the same people win the national tournaments year after year? ...ability to stay awake and focused enough to survive endless, excruciating hours of fucking boredom. ...about five people in the entire world."

...which is in comparison to boardgames, but as a game to play out through a night with booze, for a £5 each (and max bank/debt of £5 each), coloured matchsticks denoting pennies etc, it's lots of silly fun. I've had many a lovely evening and then watching the sun rise while commiserating with the others at our losses as my younger brother walks off with the loot.

4)Spades. rated 6.5, about the same as the BGG average. So that's a winner. I won't play it as it has too much memorisation to it. Wizard fixes that for all but the last round, and is pro-social, and it's not partnership and does well at 4,5 and 6 players which is marvellously flexible. The only comment, rating it a 7: "Prefer Big Two for a 4-player 52-card deck game.". Personally I only buy pro-social games. Otherwise I may as well just play on my computer.

Twilight Struggle is interesting. It's awfully heavy for me. I've played its sibling "1989", once, but it was one of those 'painful decisions' games, which I've come to dislike, plus an hour of reading rules was a bit much. My main analytical guru 'cfarrell', probably the most analytical of all the BGG big guns, rates TS a 2. The other gurus also aren't keen at 5. That's some serious hype busting, since the game has an average of 8.3, one of the highest rated game ever (and was the highest rated game in 2015, out of 80,000 games). Analysis: ...iOS version of this has largely vindicated those of us who complained...it's insanely pro-Soviet...we haven't seen the US win in 15 games, even ...switching sides etc... jaw-dropping considering how much luck there is.. too long for what it is... If it was only 6 turns, it might be tolerable, ...always bored out of my skull ..... becomes pretty obvious whose going to win but you've got another hour plus to go. 'runaway-leader' in a two player, 3 hour game? hmmmm

He recommends Rome vs Carthage and Breakout: Normandy as alternatives (but which are real wargames). Those are pretty heavy games. He has a theory on the popularity of TS: it's right on the seam between eurogames and wargames. So wargamers who want something euro-ish but just aren't going to play Beowulf The Legend can play and enjoy this. Likewise eurogamers who just aren't going to play Battle Above the Clouds, say, can find this one accessible and interesting. But for anyone who appreciates both sides of the gaming spectrum.....it doesn't have anything to offer. However, he rates 1989 a 6.

Anyway, I hope you found some of that fun, solomonrex. I'm only here to give pleasure, but somehow seem to offend some rather sensitive little flowers.

Splendour is another hyped game with almost nothing in it. It's also barely social; even a zombie could play it.

I think that this sentence catches the essence of this argument in a nutshell.

Tons of people thoroughly enjoy Splendor and it is one of their boardgames of choice, even years after the hype has died down.

Now, the fact that you cannot see what they enjoy about it isn't a fault. But it does mean that you are likely giving bad advice to the general gamer population. You cannot see what it is that causes them to enjoy the game.

As for subjective/objective - the only objective purpose of boardgames is to entertain. If they do that for the strong majority of their purchasers, they are have achieved their objective and I think it's fair to call rate them qualitatively as "good". You can be descriptive about everything else.

And as for hype - if hype makes people enjoy the game more, then it *does* make the game better. It's the same as raising the price of a bottle of win makes it better in the only truly objective measure - people enjoy it more.

Reducing Century to "cubes -> other cubes -> points" is awfully cynical. Splendor has even simpler rules and is still a tour de force, and almost any board game could be boiled down to "do a task -> do a connecting task -> points."

Splendour is another hyped game with almost nothing in it. It's also barely social; even a zombie could play it. Yet it's analysis paralysis prone and impossible to make any kind of decision until it's your turn. So it has downtime problems as well. Tour de force? San Juan is a tour de force, at least compared to Spendor, and simple.

But if you consider the simple rules and the lure of the economic engine building, I suppose it's easy access, so wide appeal. A great design if you're looking to sell a lot.

Contrast with another contemporary game, for instance, Medici the Card Game. Now that's a proper game, and simple, and pro-social.

It blows Splendour away even if it's not an engine builder.

I’ll take Medici under advisement (it’s been on my wishlist for some time), but I didn’t care much for San Juan.

I think Splendor is a tour de force; there can tours de force held by different people, and that’s okay! My group loves Splendor for its brevity, simplicity, and moments of surprise when someone purchases or reserves the right property at the right time. No one is paralyzed by indecision because it’s a game that rewards improvisation in a chaotic buying environment (or, in the case of a head-to-head matchup, you can adequately prepare for bad situations in short time by drawing the right tokens or reserving the right properties).

I think you’re finding hostile responses to your opinions because you seem to be attempting to invalidate others’, which is both impossible and potentially insulting. I personally don’t care that much since we’re random internet strangers and your views on my preference in board games mean about as much to me as my dog’s. But you’d probably find a more receptive audience if you left open the possibility that people can like “hyped” games without it being some sort of affront.

I think you’re finding hostile responses to your opinions because you seem to be attempting to invalidate others’, which is both impossible and potentially insulting. I personally don’t care that much since we’re random internet strangers and your views on my preference in board games mean about as much to me as my dog’s. But you’d probably find a more receptive audience if you left open the possibility that people can like “hyped” games without it being some sort of affront.

I think there's also hostility because coming in and telling everyone what other people think just isn't all that helpful. Tell us what you think about the game. Try being social in this social space.

As for myself, I enjoyed Eastern Wonders quite a bit, but after the first play of Sand to Sea, I never wanted to go back. As a jaded boardgamer, I didn't have high hopes for the whole "board games that could be played separately but could be combined together" concept. I also thought Spice Road was okay but not amazing. I'm actually looking forward to the third one coming out now, and will be all over buying a box set.

Splendour is another hyped game with almost nothing in it. It's also barely social; even a zombie could play it.

I think that this sentence catches the essence of this argument in a nutshell.

Tons of people thoroughly enjoy Splendor and it is one of their boardgames of choice, even years after the hype has died down.

Now, the fact that you cannot see what they enjoy about it isn't a fault. But it does mean that you are likely giving bad advice to the general gamer population. You cannot see what it is that causes them to enjoy the game.

I can see why it's popular, as I wrote above (perhaps you missed it). Alluring mechanics and easy accessibility.

But that's off the point, since what I'm actually doing is not advising anyone, but rather proposing a counter-view from experts (not myself). And views with analysis rather than subjective assertions. That's useful.

Meanwhile, the majority enjoy all sorts of relatively tedious stuff in normal life because they know no better. It's a poor justification for recommending something.

Considering that some people may be otherwise swept along by Ars's recommendations in to an impulse buy, the BGG experts' views are a helpful service. Readers may at least try it out first before buying, like in a local games club.

Quote:

As for subjective/objective - the only objective purpose of boardgames is to entertain. If they do that for the strong majority of their purchasers, they are have achieved their objective and I think it's fair to call rate them qualitatively as "good". You can be descriptive about everything else.

...and we all know of some rather low-brow movies that fullfill that objective, to entertain (and make money), but no one would dream of saying that then that makes them qualitatively good, except in a business sense. Rather they appealed to the majority.

Quote:

And as for hype - if hype makes people enjoy the game more, then it *does* make the game better. It's the same as raising the price of a bottle of win makes it better in the only truly objective measure - people enjoy it more.

...but not qualitatively. Wouldn't a game from such a lineage better suit a "Popular Entertainment" magazine, rather than a geek site full of discerning geeks?

But that's off the point, since what I'm actually doing is not advising anyone, but rather proposing a counter-view from experts (not myself). And views with analysis rather than subjective assertions. That's useful.

Meanwhile, the majority enjoy all sorts of relatively tedious stuff in normal life because they know no better. It's a poor justification for recommending something.

And, here's the snobbery again.

Let me reiterate: If people cared about what the people on BGG thought, they'd fucking go to BGG and find out. You keep claiming it's not your opinion, but everything you go on to say clearly indicates that it really is your opinion, you're just putting a figleaf of "but that's just what the gurus say" over it. It's as if your contempt for people who like less complex games has blinded you to the fact that we are, indeed, capable of complex thought.

You can respond to me or not as you see fit, but it's plainly evident that you're not interested in games as much as you are in game peen, whatever the fuck that's worth, so I'm going to spend my time doing something more productive... like Bejeweled. >_>

Having played at all player counts, I like them all. It does feel a little less competitive with two because you can reasonably safely go after your own goals without running into each other too much. With four players, it's much more likely that you'll find yourself chasing the same objectives as at least one opponent at any given time. Lower player counts are a bit more thoughtful, higher ones are a touch more frenetic. Which you prefer is likely to be down to your personal taste.

But that's off the point, since what I'm actually doing is not advising anyone, but rather proposing a counter-view from experts (not myself). And views with analysis rather than subjective assertions. That's useful.

Meanwhile, the majority enjoy all sorts of relatively tedious stuff in normal life because they know no better. It's a poor justification for recommending something.

And, here's the snobbery again.

How's that snobbery?

Snobbery is despising people for their supposed lesser taste or ignorance. There is no snobbery in what I've written. I don't despise anyone for liking Splendor, for instance. Or not knowing of its flaws or of other equivalent games that don't have them and are also actively pro-social, which Splendor isn't.

Isn't it a good thing to educate people? So that the majority might even one day enjoy something less tedious? Like Acquire vs Monopoly, for instance. Everyone complains about Monopoly, but they don't know about Acquire. It's not their fault, but my knowing of their ignorance and telling them of Acquire does not make me a snob.

Quote:

Let me reiterate: If people cared about what the people on BGG thought, they'd fucking go to BGG and find out. You keep claiming it's not your opinion, but everything you go on to say clearly indicates that it really is your opinion,

Maybe you're mixing stuff up here. Sure, my personal opinion of Spendor is negative, but I've never played Century Spice, rather I am quoting experts on it, so how can it possibly be my own opinion?

Quote:

you're just putting a figleaf of "but that's just what the gurus say" over it. It's as if your contempt for people who like less complex games has blinded you to the fact that we are, indeed, capable of complex thought.

Thanks for that presumption. The games I've suggested, and enjoy, are also not complex. They're just not as pretty (in my view). The difference is that they don't have some of Splendor's drawbacks that people seem unaware of.

Quote:

You can respond to me or not as you see fit, but it's plainly evident that you're not interested in games as much as you are in game peen, whatever the fuck that's worth, so I'm going to spend my time doing something more productive... like Bejeweled. >_>

Well, you do seem like a very angry person.

Andara, you are absolutely bent on representing my posts in the most negative light possible. Even to personal attacks.

And it's two days in a row now? So this isn't just one off day where perhaps you didn't have your morning coffee.

I really don't think your initial post in response to those guru quotes was at all justified. "If I wanted to know BGG guru opinion I would go there myself" is just talking about yourself. Meanwhile, some other people may appreciate the analysis being given on a plate that would otherwise take time to find.

Considering that some people may be otherwise swept along by Ars's recommendations in to an impulse buy, the BGG experts' views are a helpful service. Readers may at least try it out first before buying, like in a local games club.

As you correctly state, this is ars Technica. It's not a web site of Monopoly players.

We know what BGG is, and we are well familiar with the fact that it's a web site where people post their opinions and ratings of board games.

You stating that here adds no meaningful value to this discussion. Calling those who don't agree with you uneducated and lowbrow is condescension and snobbery at its worst.

Please go read some more of your "guru" opinions. With your constant schilling, I have to wonder if you have an additional ulterior motive in wanting to promote certain parties. The rest of us will keep playing games we like based on our own intelligent opinions.

Considering that some people may be otherwise swept along by Ars's recommendations in to an impulse buy, the BGG experts' views are a helpful service. Readers may at least try it out first before buying, like in a local games club.

As you correctly state, this is ars Technica. It's not a web site of Monopoly players.

So.....you support me.

Of course, because some will be happy to be informed of a counterview from BGG gurus on games that Ars is effectively recommending.

Quote:

We know what BGG is, and we are well familiar with the fact that it's a web site where people post their opinions and ratings of board games.

You stating that here adds no meaningful value to this discussion. Calling those who don't agree with you uneducated and lowbrow is condescension and snobbery at its worst.

Thanks for that massive misrepresentation, Wulf_der_Sturm. But I am not a condescending snob, and the words I used, that you have mis-quoted back at me, were to correct an undue misrepresentation by someone else.

The only thing I've disagreed with is that quoting some experts from boardgamegeek is valueless, which you appear to be insisting on yet without giving a reason.

And I would agree with you, except that the quotes included analytical content, and not mere subjective opinions. There are bound to have been people who would find them useful, and who were not going to be visiting BGG.

I've made this point right at the start.

There was no reason for anyone to get upset or start on personal attacks on me, like Andarra.

Quote:

Please go read some more of your "guru" opinions. With your constant schilling, I have to wonder if you have an additional ulterior motive in wanting to promote certain parties. The rest of us will keep playing games we like based on our own intelligent opinions.

So YOU know about BGG, and YOU don't care to know what the gurus there are saying, and YOU have decided to feel offended at me about a really quite short post of other people's objective analysis.

Who's being arrogant here? You may not like it, but you could at least appreciate that others might find it helpful.

(and what's with the smear? "constant schilling". Where is the constant schilling?)

Can someone elaborate on the "Dominion deck building" aspect of this game? These comments have gone off the rails. Dominion is one of my favourite games ever and i would like to know more if it is in any way similar.

That refers to the first game in the series, Spice Road, and it's really just a tiny element of the overall design. You use a hand of cards to acquire and trade different types of spices, and you can buy new cards letting you take new types of actions and string together combos over multiple turns. If you're looking for something that closely replicates Dominion, this isn't it, but there's a little smidgen of similarity ground between them.

Can someone elaborate on the "Dominion deck building" aspect of this game? These comments have gone off the rails. Dominion is one of my favourite games ever and i would like to know more if it is in any way similar.